Tully

Not quite your sweet love story. Young teenager romanticizes his long-dead m other and that affects all his relationships with other women. He comes around, so it could be typecast as your typical coming-of-age film. But it doesn't feel like anything typical. Which is strange, because if you break down the plot, there's really nothing new here. I think its saving grace is in how natural it feels. Even the ending, which is telegraphed with bright red flashing lights (or the cinematic equivalent thereof). There's nothing special done with cinematography -- no close-ups when there perhaps should be, no effects, not enough sweeping vistas to show the beauty of farm country. It's the acting that gives it the über-natural feel. And, no, you won't recognize any of the actors (unless you pay extreme close attention to popular TV series). It's a very simple film with a very small budget, not meant to be clever or exceedingly thought provoking. I was aware of a devotion to Clint Eastwood-directed films, albeit with less complexity in terms of plot. I'd characterize the film as one of those under-the-radar types that tells the truth without gloss or pomp. What a breath of fresh air.

year: 2000
length: 102 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212604/combined

Ocean's Twelve

Apparently, there is this bastion of people who detested the re-make of Ocean's Eleven (from 2001). I can sorta understand where they're coming from -- the current Brat Pack getting together, having a lark, you know what the outcome will be, what's the big deal? (Of course, the other part of me says, if you don't like stuff like this, why'd you go see it?) But, Steven Soderbergh and the screenwriter of the original film deserve quite a bit of credit, in my opinion. My husband and I watched the original film in Milwaukee a few Christmases ago, when there was nothing else to do, and we wondered whether our enjoyment of it was due to our need for anything to entertain us. Still, we woke up the next morning with certain plot twists still on our mind and have watched that film a couple times over the years. We still enjoy it -- it's clever, twisty, funny, one of my favorite heist films of all time. Ocean's Twelve has all of those elements except the last. It tries to bring back the magic of the first, but it's biggest problem is that, well, nothing happens. I think it was an NPR commentator who was the first I heard to remark on the complete lack of action. Granted, the first one wasn't your blow-'em-up type of heist. Still, one daring stunt in the second film, and it isn't even performed by one of the twelve? The cleverness is almost worth the price of the film, and if you like cinematic (ok, Hollywood) in-jokes, it'll be particularly fun. But it is the Soderbergh pack, scraping by on the acting (except Catherine Zeta-Jones, who apparently wasn't aware that these films are supposed to be one big party), and just having a ball. It should bring a smile to your face, if nothing else.

year: 2004
length: 120 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/combined

Closer

It's only been half an hour since I saw this, but I'm going to place it in my top three films of the year (so far). Right up there with Eternal Sunshine and I Heart Huckabees. Yeah, it could be knocked off the pedestal, but it would take a lot. It's always a relief to see stuff like this. After so many mediocre films, you forget that not all the good ideas are used up. And that's not to say that the theme of the film is unique, just that its design is. This one is about unfaithfulness and deceit. That's the non-unique part. But I won't describe much more because you should walk in knowing as little as possible about it. Regarding the plot, I'll just say that your instincts on what kind of characters are being played by Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Clive Owen and Natalie Portman will be thoroughly changed by the end. The dialogue is spare, yet every line counts and every pause counts. It's a film that will make you very uncomfortable and for a reason. It's a film that is very much about sex but is not at all titillating. It's a film that should feel unreal, but doesn't. And lastly, it's a film that you should not, under any circumstance, take a first date or new lover to. Unless of course you never want to see them again. Go with trusted friends, a spouse of many years, your parents if they're ultra-hip. It'll be worth it.

year: 2004
length: 104 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376541/combined

Before Sunrise

Yet another film I'd think was sent from heaven if I was in my mid-twenties! (i.e ., angsty Garden State-like film). The tale of two twenty-somethings who meet on a train, one an American (Ethan Hawke) moping his way through Europe towards Vienna where he has a last night before heading home, the other a French woman (Julie Delpy) on her way home to Paris for school. I'd heard so much good stuff about this flick, that it was this big thought piece with lots of insight into the human condition. On some level it is, being a conversation between a woman and a man about most of the things that we find interesting. But, actually it's simply a bunch of stories strung together, the same stories you'll talk about with your friends, except maybe not all in one night. But what makes these stories special? We all spend time thinking about the questions in these stories in the course of our lives, which is of course why this film would work better for the younger crowd. Positive things about the film include the gradual revealing of differences between Hawke's character and Delpy's (e. g., Hawke's skepticism vs. Delpy's optimism) and an excellent scene in a restaurant where they make fake phone calls to friends. I found Hawke a bit irritating because he was trying too hard, not making it natural-looking enough. Still, there was definitely chemistry between the two stars, without which it would have been like watching fingernails on a chalkboard. I remain, even with reservations, interested in watching the follow-up, Before Sunset, which takes place ten years later, if for no other reason than to see if they've learned anything in those ten years. After all, what good is listening to people talk about life that they haven't lived yet?

year: 1995
length: 105 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112471/combined

The Magdalene Sisters

These Magdalene Asylums in Ireland were set up to house and care for women (the Magdalene Sisters) who had borne children out of wedlock, or even women who seemed to be good bets for tempting men. Horrible things, these asylums, and not necessarily only because of the hard slave labor conditions, or the cruel attitudes of the nuns who ran these asylums. The horror of these places was that these women were separated from their babies and sent away by their families, in some cases for the rest of their lives. It is as if these women ceased to exist. That's certainly what the Church wanted, to weed out these women from general society. Problem is, they'd done nothing wrong. They hadn't killed, stolen or maimed anyone. They'd had a child out of wedlock, which is immoral and a mortal sin in the Catholic faith, but doesn't warrant someone being "disappeared" from society. Unfortunately, while the film shows us the cruelty of these places and the desperate measures some girls went to to try and escape, it doesn't tell us what happened to these asylums and why they were finally closed (the last one in 1996). Even the documentary that the film was based on, which is part of the DVD, doesn't address this. So, the film felt incomplete to me -- if this cruelty is the basis for the film, at least do us the favor of telling us why it stopped happening! Did the women who escaped or were released let the world know? Was there public outcry? Did those who ran these institutions finally discover the errors of their ways? Without this, it's just melodrama, and that's a pity.

year: 2002
length: 119 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318411/combined

I Heart Huckabees

It's taken me some time to get to this review. I just don't know how to describe this film. In one sense, it's a straight drama. In another, it's a thought piece sorta like Eternal Sunshine. In yet another, it's a mystery, although in a dramatic, thought-provoking manner. OK, I give up -- it's a film on many levels. David O. Russell gets the prize as the most scattered (and antagonistic) director, and it's hard to believe he can put together so coherent a film. It revolves around a number of very different characters -- the poet turned environmental activist, the perfect company man, the existential detectives themselves (Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman), a competing existential analyst, a tormented firefighter, a beautiful model. You wouldn't think these people have anything in common but that's where Russell's style worked for me. They discuss their life issues with each other (and I mean "why are we here" type issues) until you understand that everyone has the same life issues, in the long run. Some of the scenes are painful to watch, such as when the parents of the poet/activist are confronted by the existential analyst. Some of the childhood anaylsis that ensues hit me hard in the solar plexus. But most of it is funny. Mark Wahlberg getting hit repeatedly in the face with a big rubber ball can only be funny. If there's a false note, it's Jude Law's American accent, which sounds too contrived. Otherwise, he, and the rest of the actors, are marvelous. It's not possible to offer more of a storyline, suffice it to say that there is one and you will be rewarded for paying close attention.

year: 2004
length: 106 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/combined

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Ugh. The worst kind of sequel is one that doesn't do anything different from its predecessor. One that uses the same gags, in the same order, with exactly the same cast of characters. (Sub- supporting characters notwithstanding.) This film has all those things, and if you like your films with no surprises, go see this one. It's got all the original stuff: the jealousy, Hugh Grant messing up the works, the enormous panties, the fist fight, etc., etc. Of course, this one does have the Thai prison in it, but it's treated so differently from its presence in the book (where it was clear that it actually was a hardship) as to be faintly embarrassing to those of us who've read it. The filmmakers seem to be trying to stuff Renée Zellweger's derriere into tighter and tighter dresses, all merely for the giggle effect, which is simply boring. Zellweger's character also seems to wobble more than in the original between being a woman with a firm grasp of what she wants and a gibbering idiot. I just would have preferred a different cinematic approach (if you can use the word cinematic in this review without getting thrown out of the Amateur Reviewers Club). I would recommend reading the book instead -- it's funny, fresh, and weirder than the first in parts, in other words much more fun that this snorer.

year: 2004
length: 108 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317198/combined

Ray

So much has been said about Jamie Foxx's transformation in this film that to repeat it here seems almost moot. But just in case you haven't heard it already, Foxx puts in a career-defining turn channeling Ray Charles in this biopic of his life, warts and all. Although it might sound trite to say this, Foxx did his homework. His Ray is how Ray looked and sounded in real life -- high-pitched voice, slightly mumbly, but with clipped words, and of course the trademark smile and self-hug. It's not trite, because it matters. After 5 minutes, I forgot completely I was watching anyone other than Charles. There are few biopics for which you can make that claim (including Nixon and Malcolm X). The film is long, but in the long run too short. It focuses on the beginning and middle of his career (arguably his best music years), but flashes back to the tragedies of his boyhood, astoundingly assisted by Sharon Warren who plays his mother. This is the actress' first film role, and she is one to keep an eye on, no doubt. In truth, all the female roles -- his mother, his wife, his mistresses -- are richly played, more so than I expected in a film about the life of a man. Charles' unique, catchy, constantly fresh music is treated as the thread that binds the film together, as background and as distinct scenes, and here again I have to point out my awe at Foxx's work. He went to college on a classical pianist scholarship and armed with that training, learned every one of the over 100 piano cues so that he could play them himself in the film (although they are dubbed over with Charles' own playing). We should all be on tenterhooks waiting to see what this comedian, indisputably turned dramatic actor, will do next.

year: 2004
length: 152 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0350258/combined

Igby Goes Down

A film with no soul. Every line in this movie sounds like it was uttered by haughty, sophisticated, extremely well-bred morons. It's prep taken far too far. In other words, I didn't like it because I don't want to believe these people exist any more than I want to believe religious fundamentalists exist. Kieran Culkin reminds me of a cuter, younger Tobey Maguire. Same mannerisms, same baby face. The film is loaded with top actors, some of them even playing against type (although Claire Danes does indulge in one of her trademark chin-quivering scenes). But who cares? It's all ridiculous -- son hates mother, with fewer reasons we can discern as the film progresses, while getting kicked out of all the schools she labors to put him in, seemingly only as an act of rebellion. This is a great example of a youth angst film that's the complete opposite of Garden State. The latter was sweet and charming because you felt empathy for the main characters. In this film, you feel nothing but contempt for these poor little rich kids.

year: 2002
length: 97 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280760/combined

Tombstone

With lines like "Ain't that a daisy?" and "I'm your huckleberry." Val Kilmer steals this show, playing Doc Holiday, the thief with tuberculosis from the Earp brothers OK Corral tale. Spoken with a refined Southern accent the likes of which you've never heard before, he early on becomes the only reason to watch the film. Not ably assisted by Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott (who doesn't have much to say, so you can't blame him) and Bill Paxton the film devolves into the worst kind of maudlin sentiment, complete with hokey flirting scenes (worst among them the horse chasing scene). This is B-movie material and it's a great pity that Kilmer is in it as he shouldn't be relegated to drivel. I would recommend keeping one eye on the TV set and only putting down your knitting when you get to Val. Watch, rewind, re-watch, repeat. You won't be sorry.

year: 1993
length: 130 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108358/combined